Forum

colin, yeah i agree that we should have known about the rule, but it is fairly obvious that cregagh did know about the rule, and knew the player was a 1stXI player as we were practising at the time and they obviously knew as they reported it. So why agree to him fielding then? Was it part of the master plan to report us all along if they lost? If so it makes the actions even more dirty and sly.

What has happened to the spirit of the game?? how can they justify agreeing to the fielder and turning round and reporting us?? As i have said before if that is how they want to get points then they can take them. I hope whoever made the decision is happy with the points cause they wouldnt have beaten our guys if they had batted twice.

That is all i am saying on the matter

Why should it matter if he's a pro - Derriaghy still agreed that he could field then changed their mind when the result didnt go their way! Still pretty unsporting of them. People will make their own minds up as to the attitude of the clubs involved!

Re Dan.

Saintfield didn't not complain because they aren't that kind of club, they didn't complain because they won the match which is quite different in fairness. Getting away from the point there though.

Seems to have been a superb Graham Cup final this afternoon, well done to Waringstown and Holywood on what must have been a tremendous spectacle. The Lawn is certainly the place to be in underage cricket.

To Gareth: if you have grounds for your allegation regarding a player for our 2nds last Saturday I ,as Chairman of Cregagh CC, would welcome the details ,with evidence, in writing.That I believe is the more honourable way to conduct such business,not on a public forum.

As Chairman of Cregagh CC I would like to correct some of the misinformation placed onto the forum by earlier contributors regarding the ineligible sub fielder issue. On Tuesday night when the injury to the Downpatrick player occured Cregagh offered a sub fielder who actually went onto the pitch to help the home team. Downpatrick then decided not to accept the assistance but called on their own sub fielder who was practicing in the nearby nets (why-refuse the assistance: to gain an advantage of course).We were aware that he was an A starred player and pointed this out to at least two of the home team and that he was ineligible to participate.The response was 'that rule doesnt apply '. Are some contributors suggesting that it is the amount of involvement that the fielder has which determines if the rule should apply ie if he doesnt touch the ball it is OK but if a run out or catch occurs then that is unfair? You could apply the same logic to other situations eg unregistered players. I suggest (as has been commented on this forum before) that teams/captains acquaint themselves with the rules. Downpatrick - you broke the rules that is why the NCU took the action that they did.

Mark, good question and in the Derriaghy case that's exactly who sub fielded for CI

Gareth

Thats a bit rich seeing as one of your first team plays under two names, one being "Smith" for the seconds he even had a laugh about it at Saintfield last week. Is "Mr Smith" familiar to you. No one at Saintfield complained because they are not that sort of club.

Why does the NCU get blamed for the rulebook when it is the clubs that set the rules? The NCU administers the rulebook but the clubs set the rules at the AGM. Claiming a match over the status of a sub fielder sucks after having agreed to him in the first place so any club that does that has no sporting spirit at all. However, just a question, how would anyone feel if the sub fielder was the club pro? Would his status matter then?

Before anyone starts talking Derriaghy down, maybe James can give full details of who the fielder was for CI 2nds last year and how he made a big impact on the game

Tatyo I think its a little harsh to say that the name of Cregagh is tarnished. I know it is not a nice way to get/lose points but the rules are the rules. The downpatrick skipper should have known about this when he asked for a sub fielder.

Re. James

I don't think that the NCU can be blamed, the rule has to be there and if a case is presented then they are duty bound to examine it. My issue would be with the club making the complaint if they had given it the go ahead on the field, that is a bit sly to say the least. The issue of sub-fielders is a thorny one certainly, I'm sure folk can recall how unhappy I was with Dundrum's conduct last season on a similar score.

I think Armagh 2nds were a bit suspicious about the eligibility of one of Cregagh 2nds players last Saturday given the amount of different forenames he was called but it is difficult to prove anything like that....

It is pretty sad to hear what lengths some teams will go to get 4 points. Clearly the fielder involved had no impact on the game not that it mattered as both captains agreed to let him field.

And to hear that Derriaghy were involved in a similar situation last year does nothing to promote cricketing ethos throughout the NCU.

Fergs, I think DC has seen you fielding before and knows that is why we have given you the gloves!!

James i dont have a problem with the NCU here well not the people who are applying the rules. The rule is there yes but i think cregagh should be absolutely ashamed of themselves for reporting this to claim the points.

The name of Cregagh Cricket Club has been tarnished and i think its just right that people see on here what levels they will stoop to in order to get points.

What a joke, if that's the level some clubs will stoop to for a result, whats the point in playing in the first place.

What does DC mean "not the wicketkeeper", next time I see you down at training i'll show you how well us wicketkeepers can field!!!

Re Taito

Taito this happened CIYMS 2nds last season when the match was carried forward to the monday night and derriaghy batted. Captains agreed for a 1st XI player to sub field who was watching and took a catch.

CI won the game narrowly only to lose the game when derriaghy complained to the NCU. Its a farce especially when you agreed on the fielder but typical NCU!